大学生身心医学课程量化基础评估建议--基于共识的专家系统决策过程的结果。

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH BMC Medical Education Pub Date : 2024-11-27 DOI:10.1186/s12909-024-06387-x
Daniela Adam, Peter Vogelsänger, Benno Brinkhaus, Barbara Stöckigt
{"title":"大学生身心医学课程量化基础评估建议--基于共识的专家系统决策过程的结果。","authors":"Daniela Adam, Peter Vogelsänger, Benno Brinkhaus, Barbara Stöckigt","doi":"10.1186/s12909-024-06387-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is an increasing range of mind-body medicine (MBM) courses in Germany to support university students in dealing with stress. The evaluation of these varies and often only has a small number of participants due to the limited group size of the courses. The aim of this project was the development of a quantitative basic evaluation that can be used across all sites that conduct MBM courses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a consensus-based and systematic decision-making process, the learning objectives and various questionnaires for the evaluation of MBM courses were discussed and evaluated by experts according to defined criteria. The process was iterative, in which the reflection and definition of the learning objectives and the questionnaires were conditional and adapted if necessary. The recommendations for the basic evaluation of students' MBM courses were developed by consensus among the experts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For the experts, the most important learning objectives of the MBM courses were stress reduction and self-experience with the exercises. A total of 21 questionnaires were evaluated from nine topics: mindfulness, empathy, self-reflection, self-efficacy, resilience, stress, sense of coherence, quality of life, and well-being. Finally, eight questionnaires were recommended by the expert group for use in a basic evaluation: stress (PSS-10), quality of life (WHOQOL-Bref), mindfulness (MAAS), self-efficacy (GSE), self-compassion (SCS), empathy (SPF), self-reflection (GRAS) and sense of coherence (SOC-13). Further questionnaires were recommended as \"optional\". An additional qualitative evaluation is recommended for a broader and deeper understanding of the quantitative results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The proposed basic evaluation is the central result of the iterative consensus-based decision-making process, which reflects the learning objectives of the underlying MBM courses. We hope that the basic evaluation will be integrated into other MBM courses so that results of various courses can be pooled and compared across sites in the future. This could increase the informative value of the evaluations. Furthermore, researchers could consider the use of the basic evaluation in clinically controlled trials on MBM.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The project was not registered in a clinical trial registry because no results from health care interventions on human participants have been analyzed or reported.</p>","PeriodicalId":51234,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Education","volume":"24 1","pages":"1382"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11600834/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Recommendations for the quantitative basic evaluation of mind-body medicine courses for university students - results of a consensus-based, systematic decision-making process by experts.\",\"authors\":\"Daniela Adam, Peter Vogelsänger, Benno Brinkhaus, Barbara Stöckigt\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12909-024-06387-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is an increasing range of mind-body medicine (MBM) courses in Germany to support university students in dealing with stress. The evaluation of these varies and often only has a small number of participants due to the limited group size of the courses. The aim of this project was the development of a quantitative basic evaluation that can be used across all sites that conduct MBM courses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a consensus-based and systematic decision-making process, the learning objectives and various questionnaires for the evaluation of MBM courses were discussed and evaluated by experts according to defined criteria. The process was iterative, in which the reflection and definition of the learning objectives and the questionnaires were conditional and adapted if necessary. The recommendations for the basic evaluation of students' MBM courses were developed by consensus among the experts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For the experts, the most important learning objectives of the MBM courses were stress reduction and self-experience with the exercises. A total of 21 questionnaires were evaluated from nine topics: mindfulness, empathy, self-reflection, self-efficacy, resilience, stress, sense of coherence, quality of life, and well-being. Finally, eight questionnaires were recommended by the expert group for use in a basic evaluation: stress (PSS-10), quality of life (WHOQOL-Bref), mindfulness (MAAS), self-efficacy (GSE), self-compassion (SCS), empathy (SPF), self-reflection (GRAS) and sense of coherence (SOC-13). Further questionnaires were recommended as \\\"optional\\\". An additional qualitative evaluation is recommended for a broader and deeper understanding of the quantitative results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The proposed basic evaluation is the central result of the iterative consensus-based decision-making process, which reflects the learning objectives of the underlying MBM courses. We hope that the basic evaluation will be integrated into other MBM courses so that results of various courses can be pooled and compared across sites in the future. This could increase the informative value of the evaluations. Furthermore, researchers could consider the use of the basic evaluation in clinically controlled trials on MBM.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The project was not registered in a clinical trial registry because no results from health care interventions on human participants have been analyzed or reported.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Education\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"1382\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11600834/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06387-x\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06387-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:德国有越来越多的身心医学(MBM)课程来帮助大学生应对压力。对这些课程的评估不尽相同,而且由于课程的小组规模有限,通常只有少数人参加。该项目的目的是开发一种定量的基本评估方法,可用于所有开展身心疗法课程的地点:方法:在一个基于共识和系统的决策过程中,专家们根据确定的标准讨论和评估了学习目 标以及用于评估 MBM 课程的各种问卷。这一过程是反复进行的,在这一过程中,对学习目标和调查问卷的思考和定义是有条件的,必要时还会进行调整。对学生 MBM 课程的基本评估建议是专家们在达成共识的基础上提出的:结果:对专家们来说,学习 MBM 课程最重要的学习目标是减轻压力和自我体验练习。共对 21 份问卷进行了评估,涉及九个主题:正念、移情、自我反思、自我效能感、复原力、压力、协调感、生活质量和幸福感。最后,专家组推荐在基本评估中使用八种问卷:压力(PSS-10)、生活质量(WHOQOL-Bref)、正念(MAAS)、自我效能(GSE)、自我同情(SCS)、移情(SPF)、自我反思(GRAS)和协调感(SOC-13)。建议将其他问卷调查作为 "可选项"。建议再进行一次定性评估,以便更广泛、更深入地了解定量结果:建议的基本评估是基于共识的迭代决策过程的核心成果,反映了基本 MBM 课程的学习目标。我们希望将基本评估纳入其他 MBM 课程,以便将来可以汇集不同课程的结果,并在不同地点进行比较。这可以提高评估的信息价值。此外,研究人员可以考虑在有关 MBM 的临床对照试验中使用基本评估:该项目未在临床试验登记处登记,因为尚未分析或报告对人类参与者进行医疗保健干预的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Recommendations for the quantitative basic evaluation of mind-body medicine courses for university students - results of a consensus-based, systematic decision-making process by experts.

Background: There is an increasing range of mind-body medicine (MBM) courses in Germany to support university students in dealing with stress. The evaluation of these varies and often only has a small number of participants due to the limited group size of the courses. The aim of this project was the development of a quantitative basic evaluation that can be used across all sites that conduct MBM courses.

Methods: In a consensus-based and systematic decision-making process, the learning objectives and various questionnaires for the evaluation of MBM courses were discussed and evaluated by experts according to defined criteria. The process was iterative, in which the reflection and definition of the learning objectives and the questionnaires were conditional and adapted if necessary. The recommendations for the basic evaluation of students' MBM courses were developed by consensus among the experts.

Results: For the experts, the most important learning objectives of the MBM courses were stress reduction and self-experience with the exercises. A total of 21 questionnaires were evaluated from nine topics: mindfulness, empathy, self-reflection, self-efficacy, resilience, stress, sense of coherence, quality of life, and well-being. Finally, eight questionnaires were recommended by the expert group for use in a basic evaluation: stress (PSS-10), quality of life (WHOQOL-Bref), mindfulness (MAAS), self-efficacy (GSE), self-compassion (SCS), empathy (SPF), self-reflection (GRAS) and sense of coherence (SOC-13). Further questionnaires were recommended as "optional". An additional qualitative evaluation is recommended for a broader and deeper understanding of the quantitative results.

Conclusions: The proposed basic evaluation is the central result of the iterative consensus-based decision-making process, which reflects the learning objectives of the underlying MBM courses. We hope that the basic evaluation will be integrated into other MBM courses so that results of various courses can be pooled and compared across sites in the future. This could increase the informative value of the evaluations. Furthermore, researchers could consider the use of the basic evaluation in clinically controlled trials on MBM.

Trial registration: The project was not registered in a clinical trial registry because no results from health care interventions on human participants have been analyzed or reported.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Education
BMC Medical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
795
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Education is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the training of healthcare professionals, including undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing education. The journal has a special focus on curriculum development, evaluations of performance, assessment of training needs and evidence-based medicine.
期刊最新文献
Medical students' perceptions of a community-engaged learning approach to community health in Ghana: the Students' Community Engagement Programme (SCEP). Medical students' perspectives of reflection for their professional development. Perception of undergraduate medical students and examiners towards grand objective structured clinical examination. Satisfaction and learning experience of students using online learning platforms for medical education. Using the adaptive action method to tackle wicked problems in rural faculty development.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1